Subject: RE: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:16:06 -0800

 Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:16:06 -0800
I don't believe the sentence "You may not charge a fee for this Package
itself" in Section 5 of the Artistic License would be consistent with
the wording I proposed.  Does anyone remember why that sentence was put
into the Artistic License?  Is it consistent with open source software?
Is it enforced?  /Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:mibsoft@mibsoftware.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:37 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: mibsoft@mibsoftware.com
> Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution)
> 
> 
> 
> > With my rewording, there's also no need for the confusing term 
> > "aggregate software distribution."  We only need to rely on the 
> > definition of the term "copies" in the Copyright Act.  17 USC 101.
> 
> I like the clarity of Larry's , but I think the clumsy 
> wording of OSD #1 was to permit the Artistic License clause 
> #5 to qualify.
> 
> Please read the Artistic License clause #5 and see if the
> new proposed wording will continue to treat that license
> the same way.
> 
> Forrest
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3